Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 November 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 18 November 20 November >

Purge server cache

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 22:46, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Francesco Perono Cacciafoco[edit]

Francesco Perono Cacciafoco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Although ostensibly about the person, the article is really pushing the Teoria della Conciliazione or New Convergence Theory, which lacks notability and was deleted last week on the Italian Wikipedia for that reason. http://translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl=en&sl=it&u=http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussioni_utente:SecondoMontanarelli&prev=search Dougweller (talk) 22:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 23:22, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 23:22, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • DON'T DELETE As already told in the Talk Page, I think Dr Francesco Perono Cacciafoco is worthy to be on Wikipedia, because his contribution to Historical Linguistics is relevant. He proposed, with the cooperation of Dr Guido Borghi (University of Genoa, Genoa, Italy), one of the most important Indo-Europeanists in Europe, and with Assoc. Prof. Andrea Nanetti (Nanyang Technological University - NTU, Singapore), well-known Italian Philologist, a new convergent Theory in Indo-European Linguistics, indeed the New Convergence Theory (NCT), in Italian Teoria della Concilizione (a literary translation could be 'Theory of Reconciliation' or 'Reconciliation Theory'). That Theory is quite relevant in the current panorama of Indo-European studies, because it tries to 'reconciliate' apparently irreconcilable approaches to the topic of Indo-European origins, the 'pan-Indo-European' (cf. the works of Dr Gianfranco Forni on Basque, for example) and the 'pan-Semitic' (by Dr Giovanni Semerano and his followers). His Theory is not a 'sudden invention' lacking of notability, but it is based on solid epistemological assumptions. Starting from a critical revision of the basic 'semantic' methodology of Dr Claudio Beretta about Toponymy (Historical Toponomastics) in world languages, it rigorously applies Historical Phonetics (and Historical Semantics) to the etymological / toponymic reconstruction. Reconstruction conducted with the contribution of other Sciences, as Historical Geography, Historical Topography, Historical Cartography, and Landscape Archaeology, in order to always scrupulously look for a connection and likeness between data from the 'pure' Etymology and data from the historical analysis of the developments of the territories contextual to the examined toponyms. Starting from here, from the exhaustive study of the most stable onomastic sources in Indo-European languages, the place names, the NCT can link between themselves not only the 'pan-Indo-European' and 'pan-Semitic' points of view, but also the divergent approaches and reconstructions by Prof. Marija Gimbutas (Kurgan hypothesis) and Prof. Colin Renfrew (Anatolian hypothesis), without denying the achievements of the Paleolithic Continuity Paradigm (Continuity Theory) by Prof. Mario Alinei and his School (allowing to recostruct, in this way, a lot of otherwise etymologically unexplicable prehistoric roots). The studies of Dr Francesco Perono Cacciafoco about the *alb- root (hydronymic remote root), e.g., have opened a new path in the dicothomy Indo-European / Semitic (with the innovative hypothesis of an Anatolian prehistoric contact and of a passage of this root from Akkadian - Semitic language - to Indo-European), inaugurating an epistemological pattern applicable also to the dicothomy Indo-European / pre-Indo-European (referred, for example, to his studies on the *borm- root, interpreted as pre-Indo-European, reused and refunctionalized in the Indo-European linguistic system). The NCT is really an all-embracing Theory, respectful of all the points of view, trying to take from them all the epistemological achievements without denying a priori a specific approach, attenuating the differences in order to go back as far as possible in the etymological reconstruction, until the remote (prehistoric) origins of Indo-European place names and of Indo-European languages. The New Convergence Theory (NCT) is a quite new achievement in Indo-European Linguistics, so it is impossible to claim a lot of papers about this topic or - already - lemmata in other Encyclopedias, but it is the most important and innovative Theory about Indo-European languages in this years, with the 'pan-Indoeuropean' approach, with the difference, in relationship with this one, to be not so 'extreme' and to try to provide a more all-embracing and multidisciplinary vision. It is also natural that a page on the figure, as a Scholar, of Dr Francesco Perono Cacciafoco cannot be separated from a short and simple overview about his Theory, because the two entities are together, the Scholar and his Theory. I cannot accept just one 'criticism'. The page I have written is absolutely not 'promotional' or 'advertising', no one wants "push" in any case the NCT, and it was not my intention at all to do this (in that case also Dr Perono Cacciafoco would have not allowed me to write that page). The NCT doesn't need to be 'pushed' in any place, because it is a 'fluid' and progressive Theory to be applied, in the etymological evaluation, on a case-by-case basis and it can be improved and developed at any time, according to the suggestions and to the contributions of the Scholars. The NCT is exactly this, an attempt to avoid 'extreme' positions in the study of Indo-European languages and Indo-European origins. So, nothing to do with the 'promotion' of a Theory, nothing to do with 'advertising'. This fact has not been understood, unfortunately, by the Italian Wikipedia Editors, who have immediately deleted the page without opening a discussion and without looking for documentation or asking information about the NCT. About Dr Perono Cacciafoco, his papers on the NCT - just a part of his works about Linguistics and Philology - have all appeared on peer-reviewed academic and scientific Journals by important Universities and academic Institutions, all with a specific focus on Linguistics and Historical Linguistics. The works on the NCT by Dr Francesco Perono Cacciafoco are well known especially in Italy, in Germany (Universität Leipzig), in the Central Europe Universities (Craiova, Timișoara, Niš, Sofia), and in Russia (Ural Federal University, Ekaterinburg), and his paper on the *alb- root has been mentioned as an authoritative source also on the Russian Wikipedia, in the page about the Ligurian language (here the page / link, Лигурский язык (древний), cf. note n. 5). His work on the New Convergence Theory (NCT) has also been presented and welcomed with sharing by Linguists from all over the world at the XXV International Congress of Onomastic Sciences - the most authoritative academic international Conference on General Onomastics and Onomastics in Historical Linguistics - in Glasgow, on August 25-29, 2014, where, with Assoc. Prof. Andrea Nanetti (Nanyang Technological University - NTU, Singapore) and Arch. Dr Mario Giberti (Imola Foundation, Imola, Italy), Dr Perono Cacciafoco has presented the theoretical foundations of the New Convergence Theory (NCT) applied to a proto-historic case study of convergent involvement in the place naming process between Indo-European (Italic, specifically Umbrian, and Celtic) and Etruscan in the Italian region Emilia Romagna (here the link, ICOS 2014, Glasgow, August 25-29). In the South-East Asian context Dr Francesco Perono Cacciafoco is applying the pattern of the New Convergence Theory (NCT) to some undocumented and endangered languages of the Timor area (in the absence of historical documentation), being able to reconstruct the Diachronic Toponymy of those places (the results of this new and innovative frontier of study are forthcoming). I think, therefore, that in the panorama of Indo-European Studies his voice is relevant and that it is worthy to appear on Wikipedia, in a page dedicated to his biography. That page is not "self-referenced", but it is an encyclopaedic addition to the lemmata about Indo-European Studies. As told, I'll be glad to talk again with You about this topic, if necessary, and I am at Your complete disposal.

Syncerely, --SecondoMontanarelli (talk) 03:15, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • DELETE I attempted to clean up the page last night but came to the same realization as Dougweller. The person in question may (and I stress "may") meet WP:NACADEMICS but the article bears no resemblance to a standard WP Biography article. It is almost entirely about his "New Convergence Theory". The citations are such a mess that I couldn't be bothered to check whether they would support BLP notability for Cacciafoco under WP:NACADEMICS and the list of "references" are all papers written by Cacciafoco himself. And while I am trying to assume good faith, I wonder about a possible conflict of interest based on the contributing editor's level of enthusiasm regarding the "New Convergence Theory".--William Thweatt TalkContribs 06:39, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

* DON'T DELETE Dear William, thank you very much for your kind opinion. I hope the Wikipedia's Editors read what I have written in my previous message in this page and in the present message. 1) As I tried to explain and as it is self-evident from the works of Dr Perono Cacciafoco (he has a double surname), the New Convergence Theory (NCT) doesn't need 'support' or 'enthusiasm', because the works inherent in it have been already published in really important scientific and academic Journals all around the world (also a book is forthcoming) and, especially, it is an open, all-embracing Theory, establishing a hermeneutic pattern applicable on a case-by-case basis in different contexts, without denying other Theories. The NCT doesn't want to be 'absolute', as - instead - the most of the recent Theories about Indo-European languages and Indo-European origins, and tries to incorporate all the best achievements from the other Theories, in order to allow a punctual and rigorous etymological reconstruction - case-by-case, indeed - and in order to go back, in the historical-linguistic reconstruction, until the remote (possibly prehistoric) origins of Indo-European place names and Indo-European languages. The reason that led me to write this page is not to 'support' the NCT (truly Dr Perono Cacciafoco doesn't need my humble and inappropriate support and he would have been not agreed), but the fact that the NCT is the most recent and effective Theory about Indo-European Linguistics and, therefore, I thought it would have been a relevant addition to Wikipedia. And of course I am in good faith. I asked the permission to Dr Perono Cacciafoco to write the page and, to tell the truth, I am not among his 'direct followers', in the meaning that I have a less all-embracing vision about Indo-European origins. But, following the famous sentence of Voltaire, I think that this Theory is effective and that its pattern can have a lot of fruitful applications in Historical Linguistics and, therefore, even if it is not 'the Theory of my heart', I think it is right it is presented on Wikipedia. 2) About the fact that the page would be not on Dr Perono Cacciafoco, but on the NCT, it is obvious. Dr Perono Cacciafoco is not a famous football player or a Roman Emperor, so his relevance as a Scholar is in the same fact to be a Scholar and, therefore, in his works and, mainly, in his Theory about Indo-European Linguistics. It is impossible to write a Wikipedia page on him without talking about the NCT, as well as it would be impossible to write a Wikipedia page on the NCT without talking about Dr Perono Cacciafoco, its Author. 3) At the same time, this Theory is quite recent, developed starting from 2010 - and the first all-embracing papers have appeared in 2013 -, so it is impossible to already want a lot of scientific publications (that will come) or sources about it. 4) I don't understand why the citations are "a mess", they seems to me quite clear, but I can be more exhaustive and clarify point-by-point, if You have questions. 5) A short addition. I am very sorry to have created all these complications to Wikipedia. I didn't think to be at the origins of all these problems, writing that page. I thought it was clear and simple, not needing such a debate. For this reason, I apologize with the Wikipedia Editors, it was not my intention. Always at your disposal and best wishes. Sincerely, --SecondoMontanarelli (talk) 07:58, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • DON'T DELETE - Francesco Perono Cacciafoco is a well known Indo-Europeanist in Europe and also in the US. Now he is working in Asia, bringing historical linguistics in places where it is linked just with Chinese and a few other languages, expanding, therefore, the field of research to so far not studied languages. I believe the page on him has not to be deleted, because it is a sober and good document. Moreover, the New Convergence Theory 'works' well. Just to give an example, it is the theoretical foundations of two important research projects that Francesco Perono Cacciafoco is conducting at the Nanyang Technological University (Singapore), 1. Toponymy and Grammatical Change: Aspects of Language Change in Southeast Asian Context, approved and founded by the European Commission, and 2. Toponymy and Language Shift: Aspects of Language Change in South-East Asia, approved and founded by the Nanyang Technological University, School of Humanities and Social Sciences. He is also conducting a research project on the Minoan Linear A writing, in cooperation with the University of Kansas (US), always applying the guidelines of the New Convergence Theory to a new attempt of deciphering the Linear A script. This page on Wikipedia is a honest page, not supporting the New Convergence Theory, but providing a dispassionate and general survey about this theory. It's what it seems to me, at least. I believe that this page is more interesting that the 'naked' biography of the scholar. A researcher can be identified with his research and the New Convergence Theory is the most important contribution on Indo-European of the last years. Ask the historical linguists, if you don't trust on me. I tell, therefore, that it would be not appropriate to delete the page. This is just my opinion. Best, --XuBiba (talk) 11:18, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Note: the User:XuBiba account was just created and its first and only edit was the above !vote in this AFD.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 12:44, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Having read the article, it's undoubtedly being used as a WP:COATRACK to push "New Convergence Theory". There is no indication whatsoever that either the scholar or his theory have made so much as a dint in the academic world. While it's understood that the notability guidelines for an entry for an academic are far less stringent than WP:GNG guidelines, the author of the article has already gone WP:TROJAN in appending it to other articles. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:17, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Let me say, first of all, that there's no way I'm reading the discussion that's already here, nor will I be reading any subsequent comments, because that is FAR too much reading. So, the article itself is meant to be about Francesco Perono Cacciafoco, an academic. As far as I can tell, he looks a lot like Lionel Messi, but fails the notability guidelines set out at WP:GNG and the more specific ones at WP:ACADEMIC. So it's delete on that count. However, it's not really about him; only the article lede is; the rest expounds at length about New Convergence Theory. As far as I can tell, that's not a notable concept, which means it's a delete on that score too, because we can't even rename the article 'New Convergence Theory'. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 00:41, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible all the DON'T DELETE votes are by the same editor?? Quis separabit? 01:09, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Highly likely, I'd say, or at least a product of WP:CANVASSING. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 01:34, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear All, well, even if I don't understand Your rough 'hostility' to that page, I see that the debate has been already decided a priori, with the result of the deletion of the page. Ok, if You want to delete it at all costs, do this, delete it, You are welcome. I have committed a mistake posting it on Wikipedia. I thought it was the most appropriate and open-minded place. I was completely wrong. I just wonder if You have read the page in itself, if You have taken a look to the papers of Dr Perono Cacciafoco, and if You have read the comments trying to explain why that page should not be deleted. I think they should deserve a little bit of attention, before condemning the page without appeal. I am sad also about some comments not respectful at all addressed by some of You to Dr Perono Cacciafoco. I am so embarrassed, because it is my fault to have put indirectly him in this situation. I try always to be respectful and kind with everyone, I am doing it also now, here, and it is always my rule, but I don't see the same behavior, here around. Anyway, I think You commit a mistake in deleting this page, but, just because You want to do this, please, do it now, without waiting for further useless time, in a very unpleasant dripping. This seems more a factious action in law against Dr Perono Cacciafoco than a debate about a harmless page about him. I wonder whether there is censorship also here. I would like also to tell that an Editor saying, mocking disrespectfully, that a Scholar seems to Lionel Messi or that he (or she) will not read the discussion and the comments, because too long (if it is a 'debate', it is necessary to exhaustively explain and to show our opinions, isn't it?), well, I think he (or she) is not a good Editor. But, maybe, I am not a good contributor, so, no matter. I hereby change my vote in DELETE and, please, delete this page today, and don't talk anymore about this topic. I am sorry to have created problems. But I think you are wrong. I'll not post other messages, unless You have not specific and/or technical questions to ask me directly. I have nothing else to say. I wish You well. --SecondoMontanarelli (talk) 03:14, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No disrespect meant to you or the academic in question, levity often helps calm a situation down; however, in my humble opinion, he doesn't meet the notability guidelines, as I described above. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 03:34, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In reality, I am a Chinese colleague of Francesco Perono Cacciafoco here in Singapore, the author of this article told me about it and, when I've seen the deletion debate, I've felt the need to participate. The theory of Francesco Perono is the most interesting theory proposed in the last years, I am not expert of Indo-European languages, but I am a Chinese linguist and I see that that theory works also with Chinese and with a lot of minority languages in Asia and in China. When he arrived here, we studied syntax, phonetics, pragmatics, morphology, something about semantics, but his arrival has allowed us knowing historical linguistic and to be deeper in our linguistic studies. He is a good scholar and his theory is something really simple and, at the same time, suitable to solve big scientific problems. I don't want to 'defend' him or his theory, because he does not need that, I wanted just tell you that I am not a shadow of the author of the page, even if I know him, I am a researcher in Chinese linguistics and I believe I can give my opinion about a man I know personally and a theory I have had the opportunity to experiment and to test in my field of expertise. I think that if you delete the page, as I believe you want to do, the page will be again written, in a few years, by someone else, because it is just a question of time the spread of the New Convergence Theory in the academic 'society' and the flowering of papers and debates on it. I believe I am not in conflict of interest because I tell that I know Francesco Perono Cacciafoco and the linguist author of the related page. I hope, at least. Cheers. --XuBiba (talk) 12:02, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, XuBiba. I thought you were probably a colleague or student. If indeed his ideas become popular (even if disputed) then that would be the time to recreate the page. It looks as though it is just too early for us. Dougweller (talk) 12:18, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Academics are fairly easy to assess because there are many quantifiable measures of impact in numerous databases. Unfortunately, this person has very little to show. WorldCat shows several books, the highest holdings of which are 17, and WoS shows 1 paper in a journal called ATENE E ROMA-NUOVA SERIE SECONDA, which has never been cited. There is much assertion given above, but the data are conclusive. Agricola44 (talk) 16:43, 21 November 2014 (UTC).[reply]
  • If you look at WorldCat and at other 'academic' sources, more than the 50% of good Scholars would seem bad Scholars and around 50% of good Scholars would not appear there. Maybe you don't know the huge rate of corruption and patronage that is in the Universities (without exceptions, unfortunately), rate that has its mirror in the would-be prestigious academic Journals that are strongholds open only to the recommended and to the hangers-on of Full Professors who are, often, the Editorial Directors of the same academic Journals. Nothing to do with the quality of Science, maybe something (or more than 'something'?) to do with unscrupulous careerism and academic private fiefs. The sources to assess the Academics are neutral, the mishap is that both the academic Professor and the academic would-be prestigious Journals are not neutral at all. This is well-known and if someone doesn't know it, he (or she) is not so 'academic' or it is acceptable to suspect that he (or she) pretends not to know it. I want to clarify that I answered only because it is a technical comment. Sincerely, --SecondoMontanarelli (talk) 04:06, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete despite all the special pleading and walls of text in evidence above. No evidence of impact as measured by citations in Google scholar; does not pass WP:PROF. And as the subject's research seems to be on the fringe side, we need mainstream sources that discuss it in order to accurately describe the mainstream reception of those theories, per WP:NPOV; those sources are not in evidence. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:16, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 01:43, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Parma F.C. strip[edit]

Parma F.C. strip (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

One of the last of a series of articles about a football club's kit. Previous AfDs have all resulted in deletion (plus more), mainly due to lack of independent notability. The only section solidly referenced (the city's traditional colours, etc.) appears to be a re-hash of content already present in the parent article, Parma F.C. Most of the rest is a gallery with negligible encyclopaedic value. C679 20:41, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C679 20:46, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. C679 04:39, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 22:21, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Perdikou[edit]

Kim Perdikou (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Every reference except the last is a trivial mention, self-written, or PR DGG ( talk ) 19:49, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:04, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This page, and the pages for Robyn Denholm and Steven Rice (Juniper) were all created by the same user (User:Tinucherian), who has also created a handful or more of other WP:BLP pages for people who are of don't meet notability standards. Tinucherian, if you are watching your pages, you may wish to review WP:NOTABILITY and WP:RS to save yourself the disappointment of having your articles deleted. LaMona (talk) 22:27, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. LaMona (talk) 22:27, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as doesn't meet WP:NOTABILITYLakun.patra (talk) 06:30, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 01:42, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Robyn Denholm[edit]

Robyn Denholm (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All references are either trivial or PR or from the company DGG ( talk ) 19:46, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:37, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus herein is for deletion. NorthAmerica1000 20:04, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First Light Magazine[edit]

First Light Magazine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article created and de-PRODded by COI editor. Magazine was established 12 (twelve!!) days ago. PROD reason still stands: No evidence of coverage in independent reliable sources, seems to be WP:TOOSOON for an article on this magazine. Hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 19:28, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 20:05, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:59, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I have separately taken the liberty of salting both titles. j⚛e deckertalk 01:40, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nguyen Cong Phuong[edit]

Nguyen Cong Phuong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Originally written under the title Nguyễn Công Phượng, this article was deleted two months ago per this afd. Speedy deletion per WP:G4 was contested by the creator of the original version without providing a reason, and should still apply in my opinion. Either way, the underlying notability concerns remain. He still has not played in a fully pro league or received significant coverage, meaning the article still fails WP:NSPORT and WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:39, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:40, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 19:07, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Today, they created the article Cong Phuong. I've speedy deleted per A10. So, need to salt that one also. Bgwhite (talk) 01:26, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:57, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:58, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. (non-admin closure) czar ⨹ 15:51, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia Admiral[edit]

Virginia Admiral (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Other than having a famous son, she has no claim to notability. JDDJS (talk) 16:38, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Notable on two counts: a) obituaried in the NYT, LA Times and Chicago Tribune, satisfying WP:GNG; b) works held by several major galleries, satisfying WP:ARTIST (4 (d)). Facing the Sky (talk) 16:49, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:53, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep An artist in her own right. I have added some text and refs to the article, and rewrote intro to emphasize her work rather than having had a son. LaMona (talk) 00:36, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 01:39, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paula Mataele[edit]

Paula Mataele (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable kickboxer, does not meet either WP:KICK or WP:GNG. Peter Rehse (talk) 15:45, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 15:45, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He doesn't meet WP:KICK and the only coverage of him is routine sports reporting. Papaursa (talk) 19:00, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 16:28, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vivaksh Singh[edit]

Vivaksh Singh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Page previously deleted via A7 and a second time via G11 and is an unremarkable person whose name does not appear in any of the given references. I was unable to find any reference to his novel "Because Every Breath Is an Illusion" Attention by someone who speaks Hindi will be useful in examining this article due to some of the source material being in that language. Winner 42 Talk to me! 15:40, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 20:01, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 20:01, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 20:01, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I tagged it earlier under promotion (because the article does assert significance, it just sounds like someone not very notable's CV) and it got deleted and then recreated shortly afterwards, so fairly sure this should just be speedied again and possibly WP:SALTed. If this guy could possibly be notable, it would still be WP:TOOSOON. LS1979 (talk) 22:35, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. It is an instance of self-promotion and the references provided has nothing about the article leave alone anything significant/notable. The references provided in Hindi language are about a simple school function. Hence article is not notable and hence should be deleted. Lakun.patra (talk) 08:51, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete As per nomination. We should not allow the misuse of Wikipeda as a self promotion platform. Athachil (talk) 13:08, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete --As per nom..The Herald 13:55, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. One user !voted "keep" and provided a list of sources, arguing for GNG to be met (and also casting aspersions on the motivations of the "delete" !votes, bordering on personal attacks -or even crossing that border). I note that I don't see any evidence that the delete !voters did not do their homework and note that several of them re-affirmed their !vote after seeing the sources provided. I agree with them that those sources don't constitute the needed in-depth coverage to meet WP:GNG. Randykitty (talk) 07:02, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Fedroff[edit]

Tim Fedroff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable minor leaguer Wizardman 23:24, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I read through Alex's sources and they are all in the realm of short pieces of routing coverage on his minor league career. Nothing that would clearly push him over GNG. Wizardman 04:05, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails Baseball notability guidelines and fails GNG. Spanneraol (talk) 23:38, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Spanneraol (talk) 23:38, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I found a few articles, but not enough to pass GNG.--Yankees10 23:55, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:11, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not notable. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 02:08, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBASEBALL. Mdtemp (talk) 18:15, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He got considerable coverage during his time in college, because of his playing performance and because he participated in the 2007 and 2008 College World Series. During his pro career, he got quite a bit of coverage, too. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7] [8], [9]. This site actually has an excellent list of articles in which Fedroff is mentioned: [10]. He earned (fleeting) mentions in a couple books, The Road To Omaha and Oregon State University Baseball: Building a Legacy. He also earned a ton of accolades while in college. From The Baseball Cube: 2nd Team College Freshman All-American (2007), College World Series All-Tournament Team (2007), 2nd Team College All-American (2008), Atlantic Coast Conference All-Star (2008), Cary Regional MVP (College World Series, 2008), College World Series All-Tournament Team (2008). And in the minors, too: 2x MiLB.com Organization All-Star, 1x Post-Season All-Star, 1x Topps Player of the Month, 1x Player of the Week. Individually, none of those accolades would be notable, but the grand total of them all, plus all the stuff that mentions him in depth and the myriad sites that give him WP:ROUTINE coverage, give him an excellent 'hybrid' case. There's more out there but I think this is sufficient for the time being. One believes the aforementioned individuals reactively cast their decisions without performing any research, as is their wont. Please note that fact, closing editor. Alex (talk) 04:28, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Alex (talk) 04:35, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Alex (talk) 04:35, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Alex (talk) 04:35, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 15:40, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relist rationale: To permit discussion of Alex's sources. --j⚛e deckertalk 15:40, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Wizardman, Spanneraol, Yankees10, Mellowed Fillmore, and Mdtemp, thoughts on Alex's sources? czar ⨹ 15:46, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Several of them are basically the same story about him being given an award by the Indians, a couple are routine reports of him in the minors and you have a couple of brief profiles from his hometown paper. Spanneraol (talk) 16:14, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah most of that is routine. Not enough to change my vote.--Yankees10 18:05, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing editor, the above individuals are more voting against the editor who found the articles than the articles themselves. We've kept numerous Wikipedia pages on significantly less. Please keep that in mind, and please use common sense when ending this AfD. Alex (talk) 00:58, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's not true at all but ok. If you can find two more or so that isn't routine i'll change it my vote. Until then it's staying delete.--Yankees10 01:10, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the editors saying 'delete' to this article are the same ones who said 'keep' to a bullpen catcher article based on one in-depth reference. Alex (talk) 03:59, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 16:24, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Hill (music supervisor)[edit]

Andy Hill (music supervisor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Assertion of notability is as a "music supervisor, record producer, and music educator", therefore, WP:CREATIVE appears to be the relevant guideline. I cannot find coverage in reliable secondary sources necessary for a stand-alone article. Note that the article asserts that this is the same person as A.W. Hill, but merge discussion tags have twice been removed by the editor who created both articles. Both articles have the same "official link"[11]. Location (talk) 14:57, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - and he's not even a notable music supervisor. The sourcing is very weak, and unless I can be convinced otherwise, I'd say he even fails WP:42. Bearian (talk) 17:11, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Can't seem to locate any significant third party references on this guy, I was only able to find this, in attempting to verify if his grammy award win was genuine. This was the only link out of an entire google search. [1] Whitewater111 (talk) 07:27, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article has no independent significant coverage and there's no supporting evidence that he meets any notability standards.131.118.229.17 (talk) 21:06, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Andy Hill mention in book. Retrieved 23rd November 2014
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Subroto_Bagchi#Bibliograph. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:09, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Go Kiss the World: Life Lessons for the Young Professional[edit]

Go Kiss the World: Life Lessons for the Young Professional (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

After being tagged for PROD twice ([12], [13]) for notability and lack of references, this article remains without references four years later. In searching, I can't find any reviews that aren't published by promotional interests. Seems to fail WP:NBOOK. Mikeblas (talk) 14:30, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Subroto_Bagchi#Bibliography. The author himself is notable, but I can't find where the book has really received that much coverage as a whole. It's certainly mentioned quite a bit in later reviews and articles about the author and his later work, but I can't find anything really for this specific book. I'd recommend leaving the history intact for the redirect, as it's entirely possible that there are sources out there since many English language search engines don't properly crawl India-specific links and the like. (Plus India is also somewhat notorious for having mountains of old newspapers and sources that have yet to be uploaded onto the Internet.) That way if more sources do become available, we can always restore the article and add the new sources. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:52, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:39, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Mikeblas, thoughts on a redirect? czar ⨹ 15:44, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus. There were a range of opinions expressed including delete, keep, and merge. In my view neither of those positions had sufficient support after three weeks of listing for a convincing consensus to be claimed, hence the no consensus close. The nominator suggested a merge, the second Delete !vote suggested covering these locations in a list, and the third was also amenable to a merge, leaving only the last 2 delete !votes as favouring out and out deletion. Michig (talk) 16:21, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Windy Corner[edit]

Windy Corner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability; content should be merged into the history of the TT races; and/or a description of the whole course Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:51, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination to keep the article as it has encyclopaedic value. The Snaefell Mountain Course is unusual in its length at 37.73 miles. Articles describing certain parts of the course have value. The Windy Corner is a well known part of the A18 Sneafell Mountain Road is an important part of the circuit. There has been discussions by other contributors on Isle of Man TT notce boards about how the history of the Isle of Man TT and Manx Grand Prix should be developed. Merging into a general description of the course or the history of the Isle of Man TT would be over-long and unhelpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agljones (talk • contribs) 11:13, 8 November 2014‎

  • Keep Historically a sigificant viewing point which is shown on outline course maps but needs expansion. Regrettably, I moved-on through ebay some years back all of my post-1979 sources including some copious course guides and I'm not confident of turning anything 1960s up in the house, but some should be available - suggest refimprove tag rather than AfD.

    The Isle of Man government in conjunction with TV coverage have invested heavily to provide programming on free-to-air channels and the TV commentators regularly mention any TT course vantage point when adding voice-overs, often to footage from on-bike cameras and heli-cam, particularly on these mountain sections where the bikes are faster than the 'copters. Therefore the main vantage points should have searchable separate articles, IMO. The main structure has already been established, so it would be counter-productive to delete a few - the three which have been proposed for deletion would rate at 11-20 on a scale of importance starting at 1, but I would also advocate that some should be consolidated, eg Bedstead Corner to be combined with nearby The Nook, Isle of Man as a prime candidate being historic but minor, not major viewing points (this latter comment for the above editor).--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 22:14, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have now had the opportunity to go through contributions to ascertain that the same editor has nominated for deletion - or intends to nominate - many more TT Course locations than I originally surmised.

From the AfD list below, the majority are arguably 'world famous'; the other three are minor and could be retained and merged into preceding and following locations as appropriate, with name-changes and redirects. The standard of the content is often poor.


Gardener's Lane
Ballahutchin Hill
Glenlough

User @Agljones: has striven, along with others, to establish articles which should be retained and improved. Using the catch-all ploy of 'notability' is inappropriate where consecutive historic physical localities are involved.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 23:53, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability is not a "catch-all ploy", it is "a generally accepted standard", with no exception for a bend on a road. Your fatuous claim to have "ascertained" my intentions is bogus. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 12:43, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Diffs below from the nominating editor dated 3 November on landmark TT locations - the whole doesn't work with pieces of the jigsaw missing. Taken together indicates a concerted effort at retrograde deletions concerning a series of related articles.

    Some articles could be merged together and remain searchable, but not imported into over-lengthy articles such as "the history of the TT races; and/or a description of the whole course" as stated in the nomination.

    Admittedly the stubs are poor and often have been abandoned, but other forms of banner-waving would be more sensible and possibly more productive - I haven't the time to monitor and improve, at least for the remainder of 2014.
    Sulby - "rm infobox, pending its deletion"
    B'garrow - "replace infobox, pending its deletion"
    Glen Vine - "rm infobox, pending its deletion"--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 11:57, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • WP:AGF has not been suspended. The "its" in "its deletion" refers to {{Infobox Isle of Man TT course}}, not the articles. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:16, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I already figured that out; articles can have more than one infobox. Where there is a village article existing, it needs a section developing, deletion is not the way forward. As stated, I don't have the time to do it; I can envisage the format of improvements, but it's unlikely to eventuate with the risk of one individual making a unilateral decision to delete and it's too much trouble for others to get involved in. Once again, Wikipedia is the sufferer.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 13:12, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Windy Corner is not a village; it is, as the article under discsussion tells us, "a bend on the primary A18 road " - and one for which no evidence of notability has been offered. There is no instance of "one individual making a unilateral decision to delete "; that's pure FUD. I note that you have again posted the same text to three separate pages. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:57, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge with A18 or create Sneafell Mountain Road. Seriously. A BEND IN THE ROAD? Unless we are talking a major Dead Man's Curve or something, I think not GNG. Merge Montanabw(talk) 19:58, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The article Windy Corner, Isle of Man has notability as it is a well-known part of the Isle of Man TT Course. It is also named as a corner on the UK Ordnance Survey map for the Isle of Man (Sheet 95) and also named corner on Google Maps. It has been listed as a name corner in publications since the 1930's include official maps and course guides.

    In 2007, I rewrote the Wikipedia article for the Snaefell Mountain Course and removed a long list of names of corners as it had been plagiarised from a publication about the Isle of Man TT races including a number of inaccuracies and incorrect information.

    The current format of the Wikipedia article has a much improved structure and information can be easily added when it becomes available and due to its success has been translated into other languages on Wikipedia. There are an extensive number of equivalent articles about the Snaefell Mountain Course and their places names on the Netherlands Wikipedia site. However, these articles do not quote any sources and have been extensively plagiarised from to recent Isle of Man TT publications in the English language and also translating directly from the equivalent English Wikipedia article and again without quoting sources. The style of the Netherlands Wikipedia Isle of Man TT articles is also in an tabloid newspaper/internet blogging style and it is unusual to find this type of style being adopted on English language Wikipedia pages. The Netherlands Wikipedia Isle of Man TT articles also lists the fatal accidents to competitors and sometimes this has been included in a trivial manner.

    To return to the previous 2007 format for the Snaefell Mountain Course is not a viable alternative. I created separate articles for each of the more famous parts of the Isle of Man TT Course. However, other contributors have added extra articles and then abandoned them without trying to extend the articles or improving them. I have had problems with editing conflicts of many Isle of Man TT articles including incorrect information and problems with editing style. It may not be understood by editors reviewing many articles about the Isle of Man TT Races it is difficult to find and research information and present it in a way to provide encyclopaedic value or to conform with Wikipedia editing standards and rules.

    Many of the articles that you refer to have been deliberately written in a style that is low-key in respect to the fatal accidents to competitors during the Isle of Man TT Races and Manx Grand Prix Races. Also, there has been personal problems, editing conflicts and problems with trying to maintain the low-key style with contributors and editors in regard to the Wikipedia article the list of fatal accidents to competitors on the Snaefell Mountain course. I have tried to maintain a certain style for these Isle of Man TT articles and there has been previous problems of multiple contributions by different editors and some Isle of Man TT articles have been subject to a Wikipedia deletion policy and then later successfully reinstated. I am currently in the process of a complete rewrite of the main Wikipedia Isle of Man TT and the proposed amalgamation/deletion process is unhelpful. Agljones 15:58, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

    • tl;dr If this bend in the road has notability, where is the " significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic" required by WP:GNG? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:52, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 13:22, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The article Windy Corner, Isle of Man has notability as it is a well-known part of the Isle of Man TT Course. It is also named as a corner on the UK Ordnance Survey map for the Isle of Man (Sheet 95) and also named corner on Google Maps. It has been listed as a name corner in publications since the 1930's include official maps and course guides.

    The name Windy Corner as an area of open common moorland perhaps pre-dates the building the building of the A18 Snaefell Mountain Road due to a number of footpaths and pack-horse routes. The A18 Snaefell Mountain Road is the most important main road on the Isle of Man and was one of the first roads to undergo the tarmacadam process in the 1920's. It is also known world-wide as a spectator vantage point of the Isle of Man TT Races. The article now has sufficient in-line citations and restructured for notability to be included as an article.Agljones 21:08, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

  • Stricken duplicate vote. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:07, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Load of rubbish. Nearly every street and at least a 3rd of the worlds local landmarks are listed on Google Maps, that is not any idea of notability. In addition, readers of Wikipedia are in no way served by having to go between a pile of stubs or start articles. A comprehensive article on the course is needed, not this mess about every landmark on it. JTdaleTalk~ 13:18, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Come on, guys. This isn't remotely a notable corner; if the likes of Eau Rouge/Radillon at Spa, and the Corkscrew at Laguna Seca don't have articles, then there is no way this one should have one. Those are infinitely more notable corners than this, which is just a bend on an A-road, and is used once a year for racing. As stated above, being a named corner on a map is meaningless, and that has never been something used for notability. Ditto course guides, which are primary sources or routine anyway. Notability of the road does not pass on automatically to the corner either. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:24, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • As previously stated the article for the Windy Corner has been restructured and rewritten with in-line citations for notability to be included as an article and also as an Isle of Man stand-alone article independent of any connection of any Isle of Man TT racing connection.

    The example given was that the United Kingdom UK Ordnance Survey map for the Isle of Man (Sheet 95) in the Landranger Series (Scale 1:50,000) includes the Windy Corner and a number of well-known places on the Isle of Man TT Course. For inclusion by the Ordnance Survey then significant notability has to be established. Again, as previously stated the Windy Corner has been included on maps and guides for the Isle of Man TT Races since the 1930's. In respect to Google Maps, the example was given to demonstrate that the Windy Corner could be found easily on mappings system that can be accessed on the internet.

    There already exists a Wikipedia article about the course. I have also previously stated that I rewrote the Wikipedia article for the Snaefell Mountain Course and removed a long list of names of corners as it had been plagiarised from a publication about the Isle of Man TT races including a number of inaccuracies and incorrect information. The current format of the Wikipedia article has a much improved structure and information can be easily added when it becomes available and due to its success has been translated into other languages on Wikipedia. The current format for this article when it was rewritten in 2007 generally follows the format of other racing circuits including current Formula 1 courses. Some of the articles are not "piles of stubs" as they have been designed and written to be included as articles in their own right.

    The Snaefell Mountain Course is actually used twice a year for the Isle of Man TT Races and Manx Grand Prix. Parts of the course are used for the Rally Isle of Man or for local hillclimbs and for cycling races. The Isle of Man TT Races were considered from the early 1930's to be more important than all major motor-cycle Grand Prix Races placed together and which cannot be said for any other Formula 1 race or any other motor-sport event. Also, the Isle of Man TT Races has been directly linked to the development of the motor-cycle and remains a major worldwide motor-sport event. The Isle of Man TT event has also been directly linked in the 1930's to the development of sport as profession. Also, the number of fatal accidents to competitors on the Snaefell Mountain Course far exceeds the next four most dangerous racing circuits. Recently, the National Geographic Magazine listed the A18 Snaefell Mountain Road in their top-10 driving experience roads.

    I would support the deletion of 2 or 3 the pre-existing articles as they have been created by other contributors and then abandoned without being completed. The article for Sulby now has one reference to provide notability along with the article for Barregarrow. I am currently looking for information to expand the article for the Ginger Hall and for Gardeners Lane. The article for Verandah, Isle of Man has been rewritten, expanded and previously deleted information been re-included. I would suggest that the article for The Nook not to be deleted or merged as it refers to the major road reconstruction at Governors Bridge. The same article also provides a link to the list of fatal accidents to competitors on the Snaefell Mountain Course after a recent death to a competitor in 2012 at The Nook and other the articles for the Windy Corner, Verandah, Ginger Hall and Gardeners Lane also linked to the same Wikipedia article the list of fatal accidents to the Snaefell Mountain Course. The articles for Bedstead Corner and Sulby Bridge should be included as they are linked to the history of the Isle of Man TT Races. Agljones 20:43, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

  • It matters not one jot how notable the Isle of Man TT is, how notable the course is, etc... notability is not inherited. All your walls of text do is support the notability of everything bar the corner... which was never in doubt anyway. All that matters is the CORNER here - and the corner clearly fails any notability guideline you throw it at. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:57, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is an area of common land which has an unusual name and pre-dates the building of the road. The article has been rewritten to reflect this fact and to provide notability would need research in the British Museum in London. It is not a question of notability inherited or otherwise. The A18 Mountain Road and the Isle of Man TT Races are secondary. An editor has almost picked at random articles to be deleted and the editing guidelines have not been applied uniformly as can be seen on the same articles on Wikipedia Netherlands. One of the articles mentioned has now disappeared without a discussion. There has been a discussion between editors that regularly contribute to motor-cycle articles how the structure of the Isle of Man TT articles and history should be developed. Wikipedia editing guide-lines precludes original research. However, I guess that you have never driven on the A18 Snaefell Mountain Road and the used to be a very bad bump on the entrance to the Windy Corner and the fierce crosswinds during the winter have to be experienced to believed. Much more of a corner than Eau Rouge. The road section at Bray Hill is steeper than the Corkscrew corner at Laguna Seca and the bottom of Barregarrow much more technically demanding..... Agljones 21:45, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Your walls of text and special pleading - not to mention conjecture about who has driven where - are irrelevant. I have already asked you, above: "If this bend in the road has notability, where is the "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic" required by WP:GNG?", but you chose to ignore that. Either provide them, or the article will be deleted, If you cannot do so, and continue to post, you're just wasting your and other people's time. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:03, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability has been provided. See reference to publication Manx Milestones. If you require any further notability then it will take time to find a further significant reference. If there is a problem with this timetable either delete the article or take it to arbitration. It is your editing policy that has been wasting time. Agljones 22:25, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
    • A single page in a single book, much less one that verifies no more specific point than that "the Windy Corner section was constructed with a purpose built graded road section from a series of pre-existing foot and bridle paths" is not "significant coverage in reliable sources". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:49, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability has been provided. The book Manx Milestones is a significant publication about the roads in the Isle of Man. It describes the A18 Mountain Road in significant detail listing all the road milestones and the entry included in the article is paraphrasing the essential points in reference to the rest of the article to provided a balanced point of view. The article lists the road racing milestones on the Isle of Man TT course that run clockwise as to standardised all the articles as most readers of the articles may be familiar with these racing milestones and the road marker boards as they can be seen in some photographs. However, the book Manx Milestones lists the roadside markers (which are different to the Isle of Man TT road racing milestones) on the A18 Snaefell Mountain Road from south to north along the road (ie anticlockwise compared to road racing milestones) and only two other occasions that these road side markers have been listed from the book Manx Milestones as not to cause confusion. I have also listed the road reconstruction work in 2006, although this reference does cite the road safety aspect of the road which provides notability it is essentially from an Isle of Man TT publications. I have searched my own personal archive and I have yet to find a non-racing reference to this road safety work. I could have borrowed another reference but I did not choose to do so. To provided another significant reference may take two or three weeks to research. Again, If there is a problem with this timetable either delete the article or take it to arbitration. I suggest that you remove the notice to delete the article. It is your editing policy that has been wasting time. Agljones 23:55, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus. There were a range of opinions expressed including delete, keep, and merge. In my view neither of those positions had sufficient support after three weeks of listing for a convincing consensus to be claimed, hence the no consensus close. Michig (talk) 16:16, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ginger Hall[edit]

Ginger Hall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:53, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete It seems like this list of points on the TT course would be better done as a list, rather than a bunch of articles without much to say. If the points on the course have enough outside notability for an article, they should have one; if they have notability in relation to the race, that can be discussed in the race article. Brianyoumans (talk) 17:41, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The meagre content of this 'article' is a disgrace, but should be easily expanded as it's historically a sigificant viewing point. Regrettably, I moved-on through ebay some years back all of my stuff post-1979 including some copious course guides and I'm not confident of turning anything 1960s up in the house.

    The Isle of Man government in conjunction with TV coverage have invested heavily to provide programming on free-to-air channels and the TV commentators regularly mention any TT course vantage point when adding voice-overs, often to footage from on-bike cameras and heli-cam. Therefore the main vantage points should have searchable separate articles, IMO. The main structure has already been established, so it would be counter-productive to delete a few - the three which have been proposed for deletion would rate at 11-20 on a scale of importance starting at 1, but I would also advocate that some should be consolidated, eg Bedstead Corner to be combined with nearby The Nook, Isle of Man as a prime candidate being historic but minor, not major viewing points.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 19:41, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have now had the opportunity to go through contributions to ascertain that the same editor has nominated for deletion - or intends to nominate - many more TT Course locations than I originally surmised.

From the AfD list below, the majority are arguably 'world famous'; the other three are minor and could be retained and merged into preceding and following locations as appropriate, with name-changes and redirects. The standard of the content is often poor.


Gardener's Lane
Ballahutchin Hill
Glenlough

User @Agljones: has striven, along with others, to establish articles which should be retained and improved. Using the catch-all ploy of 'notability' is inappropriate where consecutive historic physical localities are involved.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 23:53, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability is not a "catch-all ploy", it is "a generally accepted standard". As for your fatuous claim to have "ascertained my intentions"..! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:18, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 12:43, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the work done on the article by Rocknrollmancer. Artw (talk) 23:03, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • There has indeed been a minor amount of work done on the article, but nowhere does it evidence notability of this "uphill left-hand bend". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:22, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • At the risk of repeating myself, this is one location in a consecutive series; taking it to a play-on-words is pushing AGF. As I have stated elsewhere, writers do not write with the intention of providing exact encyclopedic quotes for an online portal to clone from, often many years later. Wikipedia is by the people, for the people. Denying notability relating to the article's origins is again pushing AGF. It's not simply a corner-shop location, evidenced by Geograph and Commons images. Ginger Hall is not itemised on the 1973 circuit guide I managed to find in the house, but neither are many others. The quote is "Sulby Bridge! Tight right hander leading to Ginger Hall...". Wasting far too much time, 10 or so articles already, what next?? Frankly, I am dismayed but that's the way WP is going with editors being deterred.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 13:12, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • WTF does "Wikipedia is by the people, for the people" add to the discussion? Questioning the notability of an "uphill left-hand bend" is not a breach of WP:AGF. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:03, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Diffs from the nominating editor dated 3 November on landmark TT locations - the whole doesn't work with pieces of the jigsaw missing.
    Sulby - "rm infobox, pending its deletion"
    B'garrow - "replace infobox, pending its deletion"
    Glen Vine - "rm infobox, pending its deletion"--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 01:00, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:AGF has not been suspended. The "its" in "its deletion" refers to {{Infobox Isle of Man TT course}}, not the articles. It's also tiresome to see that you've posted the above at multiple locations. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:18, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I already figured that out; articles can have more than one infobox. Where there is a village article existing, it needs a section developing, deletion is not the way forward. As stated, I don't have the time to do it; I can envisage the format of improvements, but it's unlikely to eventuate with the risk of one individual making a unilateral decision to delete and it's too much trouble for others to get involved in. Once again, Wikipedia is the sufferer.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 13:12, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: It's a mere pretty bend in the road; if this stays, I have a couple thousand like this in Montana I could create. Not a Dead Man's Curve, nothing particularly notable other than a pretty view as far as I can see. Merge to A14 or create Sulby Road. Montanabw(talk) 20:08, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to something larger, such as List of attractions on the TT course, with the single attractions as searchable redirects. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:36, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge with redirects as suggested by Gerda Arendt. The redirects can be re-expanded at a later date when sufficient material is developed for a full article. And the IoM navbox will still work. Brianhe (talk) 16:29, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Can't this be merged into a larger article (as suggested by the two editors immediately above)? I'd not like to see the information lost but it does seem a bit strange to have a stub article about a bend in a road used for a vantage point during a race. A14 road (Isle of Man) is currently a redirect and thus available. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 10:06, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 13:18, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - A not particularly notable corner on a road that happens to be used for motor racing a couple of times a year. In comparison to Eau Rouge/Radillon at Spa, and the Corkscrew at Laguna Seca, this corner is not remotely notable... and those corners wouldn't be given their own article. A lot of people who don't follow the big motorsports will still know Eau Rouge and the Corkscrew, but Ginger Hall? No, not remotely. Using primary sources to claim that it is a major vantage point isn't going to help the keep !voters' arguments. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:59, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was withdrawn by nominator. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 00:24, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Communist Party of Greece (Marxist–Leninist)[edit]

Communist Party of Greece (Marxist–Leninist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Total lack of supporting references and sources. The Gnome (talk) 17:48, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 03:56, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 03:56, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep political parties are notable, and lack of citations is not a reason for deletion. Constantine ✍ 08:08, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Notability of political parties does not override the Wikipedia rule on citations. Moreover, notability itself is demonstrated only by citing "third-party", "reliable sources". The current entry is simply the translation of a Greek Wikipedia entry that does not include any citations either - see this criterion for speedy deletion. -The Gnome (talk) 04:49, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lack of citations is a reason for deleting when the notability is self-evident. Political parties that have existed for 40+ years and contested multiple elections, even if they are on the ideological fringe, are inherently notable. Constantine ✍ 09:09, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(You probably meant "not self-evident.") But, pray, how are we supposed to assess notability in the English Wikipedia without a single, English-language reference?? The whole text could be a heap of original work. Notability in one language does not necessarily translate to notability in another language. If it were like this, we'd have all entries present in all languages! I'd suggest that editors interested in keeping this article up find some reliable citations for it. Currently, there are none whatsoever. -The Gnome (talk) 19:04, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, first, notability is totally unrelated with WP:OR. This AfD is based on the lack of citations, and that in itself is no reason for deletion. The criteria for deletion #6 and #7, which concern sourcing, have nothing to do with the case here, unless there were "thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them" on your part before bringing the article to AfD, of which I see no evidence. Criterion #8, which concerns notability, is not on the AfD rationale in the first place, and even if it were, a political party is not judged differently if its main language is Greek or English, at least if Wikipedia is meant to represent the sum of human knowledge, at least, and not the sum of knowledge of the English-speaking world. A party that has had a steady presence over several decades is notable, period, or we understand completely different things under "notability". Unless you have reason to suspect that the article subject or its content is a hoax, which it obviously isn't, there is no reason for deletion. Constantine ✍ 13:14, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We have an entry here constructed without a single citation for outside sources. How, then, are we to establish, first of all, notability? It could all be a heap of original research. In general elections in Greece, a great number of extremely small parties "have had a steady presence" over several decades. Do they all deserve a separate Wikipedia entry? (Note that we're almost a week into this proposal, and no one has managed to come up with references and sources for the article; not even Greek language sources.)-The Gnome (talk) 09:11, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"no one has managed to come up with references", well, that was because I for one was not looking. After I started looking, I found several immediately, and user Soman has also found material, which suggests that you did not look yourself. I repeat, the premise of the AfD is wrong. The usual practice I have encountered in all the years I've been here is that no references does not equal immediate deletion, except if there is reason to suspect a hoax or a completely non-notable subject. At the very least a cursory search would have revealed that the subject has a presence on the web way beyond what a normal hoax or two-person joke party has. From then on, tagging it with "references lacking" would have been appropriate, requesting help at the WP:GREECE talk page would have been a good move, googling the subject yourself and asking for help for translation from Greek would have been even better, but AfD-ing it to essentially force other people to add references is not OK. Constantine ✍ 14:07, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It has been tagged with a "references lacking" notice - since 2012. How many years exactly are we supposed to wait and leave it as it is before we do what the "reference lacking" notice says? ("Unsourced material may be challenged and removed"). -The Gnome (talk) 23:01, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, lack of citations is not a valid reason for deletion. Plenty online material is available if someone is interested to expand it. --Soman (talk) 16:19, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, lack of citations is expressly a "valid reason" for deleting an article, This particular article has been tagged for lack of citations since 2012. Enough already. -The Gnome (talk) 04:49, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"This essay contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors...", read the fine print. --Soman (talk) 10:43, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but what are you referring to? Are you commenting on the relevant Wikipedia rule? -The Gnome (talk) 20:04, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Essay, not rule. --Soman (talk) 23:27, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Τhe Wikipedia rules for deleting an article are specified here. Please check out, in particular, reasons #6, 7 & 8. Additionally, you may want to compare the total lack of references in this article to the thorough referencing in the entry of an equally small, leftist political party, the Partito della Rifondazione Comunista. Cheers. -The Gnome (talk) 12:18, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neither 6, 7 and 8 applies here. It is not impossible to source material for the article, running a quick google shows that. --Soman (talk) 13:03, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If it is "not impossible" then, by all means, go ahead and do it! Before proposing that the article be deleted, I tried but found next to nothing online. If the situation is rectified, I have no problem whatsoever with the article staying up. Like I said, compare this entry with the entry for another, equally small, far-left party and you'll see what's proper sourcing. -The Gnome (talk) 13:09, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For the record: relevant text of the pertinent articles
6. Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources
7. Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed
8. Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline -The Gnome (talk) 13:14, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In order to refute allegations for the entry's subject being a "microparty" (allegations which have not been made through the proposal for deletion), one would need to invoke electoral returns. This is an entry about a political party, not a political movement. -The Gnome (talk) 09:15, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Editor Soman has created a significant number of Wikipedia entries dedicated to small political organisations, as can be attested from his User Page. I personally consider the work to be highly commendable. Perhaps, Soman would be interested in improving the article in question. I certainly have been unable to do so. -The Gnome (talk) 09:24, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a longstanding political party that has contested elections, and has a newspaper, and is a bona fide organization. Contrast to Transhumanist Party, also at AFD, which has no organization. --doncram 18:49, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 13:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Profiled in this source, which could be used in the article quite extensively (I would do it myself but I'm in a hurry and will do it later if nobody else has). Keresaspa (talk) 15:53, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, sorry, but Alexander mentions KKE/ML, not KKE(m-l). --Soman (talk) 18:18, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Strike my vote then. Keresaspa (talk) 03:21, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The current state of the entry does not warrant its deletion, as far as having adequate references is concerned. Therefore, I'm obliged to withdraw my nomination for deletion. -The Gnome (talk) 18:58, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was withdrawn by nominator. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 00:16, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marxist–Leninist Communist Party of Greece[edit]

Marxist–Leninist Communist Party of Greece (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Total lack of supporting references and sources. The Gnome (talk) 17:48, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 03:56, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 03:56, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep political parties are notable, and lack of citations is not a reason for deletion. Constantine ✍ 08:09, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Notability of political parties does not override the Wikipedia rule on citations. Moreover, notability itself is demonstrated only by citing "third-party", "reliable sources". The current entry is simply the translation of a Greek Wikipedia entry that does not include any citations either - see this criterion for speedy deletion. -The Gnome (talk) 04:49, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, notability in one language does not necessarily translate to notability in another language. If it were like this, we'd have all entries present in all languages! Editors interested in keeping this article up should find some reliable citations for it. Currently, there are none whatsoever, despite the tag that's up there since 2012. -The Gnome (talk) 19:07, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your point on citations required to demonstrate notability, but I pretty much don't agree with your other remarks. WP:CSD#A2 is for straight copy/paste dumps from other non-English wikipedias, which this clearly isn't. Even if it were in another language you're more likely to stumble across a translate this tag, rather than a delete one. And notability in another language does make it notable in another, provided that the notability requirements are the same. Just because a source is in a different language shouldn't automatically make it unreliable because it's not in English (or any other language you don't personally happen to understand). Fuebaey (talk) 03:20, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do not claim that a source in a non-English language makes for an "unreliable" reference. It would be ludicrous to claim that. (More so because I also happen to use non-English sources, when necessary.) I would, in fact, be content to keep the article if someone were to take the trouble and insert sources in Greek. This proposal for deletion should have alerted interested editors into getting to work on the article's non-existent references. But so far nothing is being done. -The Gnome (talk) 02:19, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article now has references, and is better off for it (thanks to Soman for his contributions as well), but bringing an article to AfD to essentially force people into adding references (because that is the gist of the deletion rationale both here and in the sister article) is the wrong way to go about it. Constantine ✍ 16:26, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, lack of citations is not a valid reason for deletion. Plenty online material is available if someone is interested to expand it. --Soman (talk) 16:19, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, lack of citations is expressly a "valid reason" for deleting an article, This particular article has been tagged for lack of citations since 2012. Enough already. -The Gnome (talk) 04:49, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 13:14, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I was able to drag up some coverage from a book about Maoism that I've added to the article. I'm sure there is more in Greek but I can't read a word of it. Keresaspa (talk) 15:50, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The current state of the entry does not warrant its deletion, as far as having adequate references is concerned. Therefore, I'm obliged to withdraw my nomination for deletion. -The Gnome (talk) 19:01, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 16:08, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ethiopian Orthodox Tehadeso Church[edit]

Ethiopian Orthodox Tehadeso Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As far as I've been able to determine, there is no such entity or organization bearing the name "Ethiopian Orthodox Tehadeso Church." I had tagged this article with {{Unreferenced}} in August 2006, and more than 8 years later, no one has added a reference. I believe the article describes a real or imagined phenomenon, perhaps best described as entryism, whereby a Pentecostal church (see P'ent'ay) supposedly lures believers and clergy away from the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church (note the similarity to this article's name). I recall performing a Google search on the word "tehadeso" (Amharic: "reform") which turned up message boards etc. (nothing that I'd consider a reliable source) describing this purported trend, and in that specific context, "tehadeso" would seem to be used in a purely negative sense. At this far remove, I'm unable to find any of those sources, although this page may have been written in response to such criticism (and I'm not at all certain that that website is officially affiliated with the Orthodox Church). Potentially relevant websites such as facebook.com/TICEthiopia and Tehadeso.com are instead apparently related to Ethiopian Pentecostalism in general, while Tehadso.com seems to represent a Catholic lay organization. I'm hesitant to have this article deleted, because (as I've mentioned on the article's talk page) it seems to be the only English-language resource about the (real or imagined) "tehadeso" phenomenon, but again I'm referring to "tehadeso" in general rather than a "Tehadeso Church," which does not seem to exist. Gyrofrog (talk) 20:41, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. Gyrofrog (talk) 20:45, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Gyrofrog (talk) 20:47, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Notified WP:ETH and WP:OO WikiProjects. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 20:59, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The explanation above does not match that given in the article; I can't tell whether the proposer was aware that Reformed theology refers to Calvinism – I have now linked this phrase in the article. There are quite a lot of "Ethiopian Orthodox Tehadiso" videos on Youtube, including a long series called "Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Vs Tehadiso", but I didn't see any in English. – Fayenatic London 23:12, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There does seem to be a "tehadeso" effort which, you correctly point out, is not really covered in the article. However, someone had rewritten it (relatively) recently so that the lede now alludes to it -- if this article has or had any value at all, I think it may have been from that, but it's insufficient for keeping the article. I could have been more clear that the article (1) doesn't (much) cover the "tehadeso" effort, which does seem to exist in a general sense, and (2) instead names an institution ("Ethiopian Orthodox Tehadeso Church") which does not seem to exist. I believe that "tehadeso" in the general sense would warrant its own Wikipedia article (like P'ent'ay , although now even that article implies a centralized institution), if we could locate good sources to corroborate it. But I don't think this article does that, and will not do so under its current title. WP:TNT if we can find good sources. (I also wonder if the phrase "Ethiopian Orthodox Tehadeso" itself has perhaps taken on a life of its own, following the appearance of this article on the internet. For a while this article was the only such result from a Google search.) -- Gyrofrog (talk) 17:20, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To put it another way (so much for making things clearer): For a while, I believed it was worth keeping the article as a resource about the "tehadeso" effort even if it's explicitly about "Ethiopian Orthodox Tehadeso Church." But I no longer believe it's a useful source about anything. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 17:47, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - A "Tehadeso Church" institution comparable with the Tewahedo Church indeed doesn't appear to be exist. According to the historian and Orthodox specialist Tibebe Eshete, the term tehadiso denotes a "renewal" ethos within the existing Orthodox adherent community, so that perhaps may have something to do with it [14]. One Ethiopian Orthodox Reformation Communion, which is apparently affiliated with "Ethio Tehadiso", also indicates on the OurChurch Christian webhosting service that it maintains its own training website someplace, but doesn't specify anything beyond that [15]. Middayexpress (talk) 16:24, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 13:12, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 01:39, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kishore Gajbhiye[edit]

Kishore Gajbhiye (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable civil servant. Fails Fails WP:GNG. Not enough references Uncletomwood (talk) 12:47, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - agree with nom - non notable civil servant, just doing his job Gbawden (talk) 07:06, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Appears to be a bureaucrat, not an elected politician. No coverage to show he's done anything encyclopedia worthy or generated much coverage for any reason.131.118.229.17 (talk) 22:00, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 16:05, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zestern analysis[edit]

Zestern analysis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No independent and reliable sources, low notability, not (yet) established in the scientific, article seems mainly commercial and advertisement hroest 11:57, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 12:45, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. There is certainly no consensus to delete this. Keeping as a standalone article is the most favoured option, and a possible merge can be discussed on the article's talk page if anyone wished to pursue that further. Michig (talk) 16:02, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Alsbury[edit]

Michael Alsbury (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable per WP:BIO1E. I previously redirected this—also for WP:NOTMEMORIAL reasons—to 2014 Virgin Galactic crash (now VSS Enterprise crash), in which he died. But User:Mjroots asked me to take this to AfD, so here we are. Don Cuan (talk) 10:48, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to 2014 Virgin Galactic crash. Am surprised that Mjroots suggested to bring it here; as an admin he should know that redirects get discussed on talkpages, not at AfD. But as you say, here we are. And as you say, Alsbury pretty much fits WP:BIO1E exactly, but he's a likely search time and redirecting it to the accident's article would be the best solution. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 11:27, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 11:30, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 11:30, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - a look at the article's history will show that this was created as an article and converted to a redirect, which I undid, thus returning it to an article again. I've got no strong feelings either way as to whether or not Alsbury deserves an article. I'm happy for the community to discuss this. If the outcome is that it is turned back into a redirect, then that's fine, as is a keep outcome. Mjroots (talk) 11:38, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So literally no-one is recommending deletion? cough WP:SK cough Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 11:45, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ec) Merge to VSS Enterprise crash, adding the basic professional details into that article. Mjroots asked the nominator to AfD this as (from my reading) he believes astronauts have inherent notability and wants to keep the article. I'm not so sure myself, particularly as the article is largely cited to a single LA Times source and a search for additional material overwhelmingly returns hits to the crash (although that is to be expected). However, that's not necessarily going to be the case in a years' time, when other material may have come to light, so parking it as a redirect sounds like the best option for now. For what it's worth, I have "abused" AfD over "keep vs redirect" discussions (eg: this) per WP:IAR simply because it gets attention and consensus settled, while a talk page discussion can sit for months without input. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:47, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's about the sum of it, although I can see that some would say he was not an astronaut, but a test pilot (not necessarily auto-notable). What I object to was the arbitrary, undiscussed conversion to a redirect, which is why I reverted that edit. Mjroots (talk) 13:03, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Someone who dies test-flying a spacecraft, whether he counts as an "astronaut" or not, is inherently historically important and will be remembered and written about for a long time. Gildir (talk) 15:04, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Agreed, obviously—I initiated the article. Indeed, that’s part of the point to Category:Space_program_fatalities, which I fear is inevitably open-ended, but which will be long remembered. I’ll also note that the seven (at current count) footnotes strongly suggest notability.

—FlashSheridan (talk) 16:56, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid the number of sources has little to do with notability; rather it is the weight and reliability of them. That's also what WP:BIO1E also mentions - when an individual is involved in a single event but their life is otherwise undocumented, it's natural for the same story to be repeated in multiple news sources, which is what's happened here. However, ultimately the sources are all citing what is fundamentally the same event. (PS: Don't cite the Daily Mail; it upsets John and makes steam come out of his ears....) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:35, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, it was not I who cited the Daily Mail; I carefully avoided it in print while living in Britain, and while it on occasion covers topics online neglected by other sources, I have some sympathy for the steam. But I don’t think the same objection applies to The Independent, Reuters (Science Daily), or the BBC, and will remain carefully neutral about the Los Angeles Times.
—FlashSheridan (talk) 04:48, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:28, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 15:55, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wyzmindz[edit]

Wyzmindz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't Meet Wikipedia notability guidelines Lakun.patra (talk) 10:27, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 12:46, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The awards mentioned are non-notable and multiple searches turn up no evidence that this is any more than a firm going about its business. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 17:48, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:27, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree with Lakun. Aside from their own websites, they appear to be non-notable.Imitch5 (talk)
  • Delete This is an orphaned article too and there are no independent WP:RS for it. --Artene50 (talk) 01:13, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus herein is for deletion. NorthAmerica1000 19:40, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Secon[edit]

Secon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't Meet Wikipedia notability guidelines Lakun.patra (talk) 10:17, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I wasn't able to establish notability when I tagged this back in July. Doesn't look like any progress has been made. ~KvnG 20:35, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:22, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Software company article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up business directory listings and corporate sites but no significant, independent RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 17:51, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus herein is for deletion. NorthAmerica1000 19:32, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Qualtech Consultants[edit]

Qualtech Consultants (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't Meet Wikipedia notability guidelines Lakun.patra (talk) 10:12, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Originally a WP:SPA article, subsequently tended by another single-purpose account. Being among a batch of "10 most promising" recipients of a non-notable award is not evidence of attained encyclopaedic notability, nor am I finding other evidence from searches. AllyD (talk) 17:54, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Software company article of unclear notability, lacking significant, independent RS coverage. The only ref is to an award listing, not significant coverage, and on its own not sufficient to establish notability. A search turned up press releases and business directory listings, but no significant RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 17:07, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Mojo Hand (talk) 02:22, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Amalia Marquez[edit]

Amalia Marquez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced biography article of a possibly living person. PROD was removed without comment by an anonymous editor. The article is not so much about Marquez as a WP:COATRACK concerning Carlos Castaneda, as a quick read will demonstrate.

Note that while the current version of the article is unreferenced, this version did contain some references. Of these, we have what appear to be non-WP:RS sites "The Charley Project" and "Sustained Action", a couple of primary sources, a dead link from "Life Positive", an article from the "Pahrump Valley Times" that doesn't mention the subject, and a single source in Salon that mentions Marquez briefly, but which is not substantially about her. I was not able to find any better sources on Marquez, either under that name or her alias "Talia Bey".

I don't doubt that her disappearance is distressing for her family, but Wikipedia is not a missing persons site and we shouldn't be hosting thinly veiled attack articles like this, especially under the name of a potentially living person. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:01, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 18:11, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 18:11, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 18:11, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable due to lack of sources; the only real source, the Salon article [23], mentions her along with the other two "witches" who also disappeared shortly after Castaneda's death, but it's not enough to establish her notability. However, I don't agree that the page is a "thinly veiled attack article". I would encourage the nominator to look at the articles about the other two women, Florinda Donner and Taisha Abelar, to see if they qualify for inclusion here. --MelanieN (talk) 20:23, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply, perhaps it's just me then, but there seems to be a clear implication in the article that Cleargreen is somehow involved in Marquez's disappearance. As you've noted, even with that aside the article still needs to be deleted. I'll review those other two articles, they don't seem as prejudicial to me after a quick skim through, but if this ends with a "Delete" outcome I'll probably seriously consider nominating those as well. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:11, 20 November 2014 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete Not notable; unreliable sources (now-deleted ), including the referenced Salon article, which uses the same now-deleted references as sources - a double whammy, if you please.

NB To call the women concerned "witches" is a loaded phrase, as is "..who also disappeared.." They haven't "disappeared": they've been forced to live incognito since 1998, due to the fact that they were being harassed - and still are. 78.147.177.20 (talk) 00:26, 20 November 2014 (UTC) — 78.147.177.20 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merged - I've merged the 2nd gen into first, I will say however the nom should've been bold & merged himself. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 14:30, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hyundai Elite i20[edit]

Hyundai Elite i20 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The reason why I decided to delete this page is because it can be simply covered on Hyundai i20, I've been made merge proposal, but no discussion after that. John123521 (Talk-Contib.) RA 07:52, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - If nobody discussed your merger proposal, why not be bold and merge it yourself? --Lemnaminor (talk) 08:13, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Merge to 7 Up. Randykitty (talk) 07:04, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Salted lemon 7-up[edit]

Salted lemon 7-up (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It's apparently true that this is a way 7-up is served in Hong Kong. However, I doubt there are sufficient sources discussing this practice in detail, and even if there are, it merits at most a section in 7 up, not its own article. Sammy1339 (talk) 07:48, 3 November 2014 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related page which is a cleaned-up version of the one under discussion already:[reply]

Salted lemon seven-up (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

--Sammy1339 (talk) 19:56, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:46, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deadbeef 06:18, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 07:33, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. (non-admin closure) czar ⨹ 23:24, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sutomo School[edit]

Sutomo School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not Notable. According to WP:GNG and WP:ORG and WP:ORGDEPTH , A company, corporation, organization, school, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject. A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization. @NnAs (talk) 05:53, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:38, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 07:32, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh (talk) 22:23, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Hassan[edit]

Mohamed Hassan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Just a participant in Arab Idol, he did not win nor did it appear that he even came close to winning. All sources given are first party sources or unreliable sources. No indication that he satisfies WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO in any way. Additionally, article has a promotional tone to it. Safiel (talk) 04:52, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 07:31, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - there is not even an assertion of notability. Why is this badly-sourced, NN, BLP even here? Bearian (talk) 17:09, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Poorly sourced BLP with no current claim of notability. --Michig (talk) 09:59, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Omar Khadr#Second tribunal. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:12, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Groharing[edit]

Jeffrey Groharing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unclear to me what the arguments are for his notability. He is quoted sometimes, as happens with lawyers in more-or-less high profile xases. He is married to a notable person. But where has he received the significant attention needed to have an article? Of the seventeen current sources, most are about Khadr, or not significant, or not independent (army sources). None I found is really or even partially about Groharing. Basically this is a WP:BLP1E about someone involved with but not notable for one event, i.e. one court case. Fram (talk) 09:11, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent)|lambast 13:44, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent)|lambast 13:45, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Omar Khadr#Second Tribunal. Regardless of my negative opinion of Omar Khadr, the subject of this AfD has received all of his significant coverage in relation to the tribunal of Omar Khadr. I have not found any significant coverage of the Soldier/Officer that is not related to the prosecution of Omar Khadr. If there is, this article can be recreated. However, as all the reliable sources are in relation to the prosecution of Omar Khadr, per WP:BIO1E, this article should be changed into a redirect to the event which the subject is notable for.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 14:33, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - seems to lack "significant coverage" (not post 2007?) in reliable sources so not notable per WP:GNG. Redirect would also work per RightCowLeftCoast. Anotherclown (talk) 09:01, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 10:52, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 10:52, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 02:29, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 07:28, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus, defaulting to keep. Certainly no consensus to delete here after three weeks of discussion. Michig (talk) 09:50, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

British School, Kuala Lumpur[edit]

British School, Kuala Lumpur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced article about a non-notable international school. I'm unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources, only the school's own website, a handful of internet forums, and some lists of schools. While schools may often be important organizations in their communities, international schools are less likely to have the same influence, as they generally serve transient expats. Pburka (talk) 12:50, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent)|lambast 13:43, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent)|lambast 13:44, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there is no evidence that this school actually has expanded to include what we call in the United States, "high school". Bearian (talk) 18:18, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, albeit weakly, or possibly redirect to Kuala Lumpur#Education. Though the school appears to be somewhat new, and it hasn't fully implemented its secondary education yet, it's still a secondary school, which is automatically notable. Though I'm not against a temporary redirect to the aforementioned link if consensus decides that it's the better option, as it's not yet a full secondary school. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:18, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as I am aware, there is no policy, guideline or consensus that secondary schools are automatically notable. They still need to demonstrate significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Pburka (talk) 13:24, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not a policy or guideline, but WP:OUTCOMES discusses the consensus about the notability of schools. In a nutshell, primary schools aren't inherently notable, but secondary schools are. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:10, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's not my interpretation of WP:OUTCOMES. That essay explicitly states that "previous outcomes do not bind future ones" and that "notability is demonstrated by the mustering of evidence that an article topic is the subject of multiple instances of non-trivial coverage in trustworthy independent sources." Pburka (talk) 01:18, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That link says this under "Schools" - Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions and high schools are being kept except when zero independent sources can be found to prove that the institution actually exists. I.e they are kept unless there are zero sources to prove the article is not a hoax. The assumption is that sources will be found, so high schools are not deleted. --Bduke (Discussion) 02:03, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OUTCOMES doesn't describe policy; it describes what has often happened in the past. (Although the Harlem Globetrotters usually defeat the Washington Generals, they still have to play each game to determine the outcome.) In this case, we're discussing an English-language international school founded in 2009. The school is private, and must promote itself around the world to attract students. It should, therefore, be easy to find relevant sources for the school on-line. I've tried and failed to find such sources. If you are arguing that such sources do exist, then please provide some concrete evidence. Pburka (talk) 14:46, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OUTCOMES doesn't describe policy, but it does record consensus. I don't recall any secondary school being deleted in the past few years. That is a consensus and that is how Wikipedia works. It's time we made it formal to prevent these tiresome nominations, but until it is we point to OUTCOMES to illustrate the fact that a majority who contribute to AfDs wish to keep all secondary schools. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:29, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The school is one of the largest international schools in Kuala Lumpur with close to 1000 students. Its also a member of FOBISIA and COBIS, both reputable school organisations. I am no expert in Wikipedia rules, but deleting this article would clearly impoverish Wikipedia. (Discussion) 02:03, 9 November 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.147.2.52 (talk) [reply]
  • keep per ordovas 78.144.245.50 (talk) 19:44, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: John Ordovas is the director of the British School Foundation, which operates the school. I presume that he authored one of the anon comments. Pburka (talk) 19:58, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 02:28, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. All secondary schools are notable. See WP:OUTCOME#Schools. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:17, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:OUTCOMES is an essay which does not reflect consensus or policy. The relevant guideline is WP:NSCHOOL. Pburka (talk) 04:27, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a secondary school per longstanding consensus and precedent. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:26, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    My understanding is that, in the past, editors have argued that secondary schools will inevitably be the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. I propose that this school is only 5 years old (so any sources are likely to be on-line), and it promotes itself aggressively (including on Wikipedia), yet nobody is able to find significant coverage in reliable sources. Pburka (talk) 15:13, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, secondary schools up to 12th grade or A form are notable, but this school does not yet go up that far, so it does not pass, period. Bearian (talk) 21:47, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. –Davey2010 • (talk) 23:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES says that the notability guideline for schools is WP:ORG. Nobody in this discussion has claimed that this school satisfies, or is likely to satisfy, that guideline. Pburka (talk) 03:17, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Primary Schools get redirected. Secondary/High schools are kept per SCHOOLOUTCOMES, Narutolovehinata5, Eastmain, Necrothesp and myself have both told you it passes OUTCOMES and why!. –Davey2010 • (talk) 03:29, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 07:28, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Why was this relisted? The consensus seems to be leaning more towards a "keep". Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 14:28, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Because there seems to be a dispute whether WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is citable as policy. I wasn't keen on closing it because it's a bit too close to call. I'm hoping a few more contributions might make consensus clearer. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:39, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not being cited as policy. It's being cited as an illustration of de facto consensus. Completely different thing. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:44, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's being kept open because there is no consensus about this school. It's not yet a high school, so they can say "schooloutcomes" a million times, but Wikipedia is not a psychic friend -- there is no 100 % guarantee that this will become a high school as planned.. Bearian (talk) 21:31, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES says "Schools that are being planned or built, except high schools reliably sourced to be opened within 12 months, are being deleted". Thus even if this school was being planned or built is could be kept. In fact it clearly has a High School stream of students who will move to year 12 or "A" level year. It is not a Middle School where no decision has been made to open a High School. I now am clear that this should be kept. --Bduke (Discussion) 00:00, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Secret account 19:53, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Singleton Atheist Evangelist[edit]

Sam Singleton Atheist Evangelist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable creation by non-notable humorist. Lots of Google hits, but nothing in reliable sources that actually discuss our subject. Drmies (talk) 02:02, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 02:18, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 07:26, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No evidence of notability found for the comedian, never mind the comedian's alter-ego. No significant coverage in reliable sources that would put either real or fictional subject over the bar of WP:GNG. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 07:56, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the handful of google hits are listings of performances. Character (or comedian) would need interviews/profiles/actual articles to be remotely eligible.ShulMaven (talk) 13:22, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect to Jewish Community Watch#Founding. Remember to attribute the merged text when performing merges. Otherwise it'll look like your own original contribution in the edit history. (non-admin closure) czar ⨹ 23:30, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Meyer Seewald[edit]

Meyer Seewald (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not meet WP bio notability requirements. Sources do not meet depth requirements. Most WP worthy information is on the JCW organization. I.am.a.qwerty (talk) 06:57, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 11:00, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 11:00, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 11:00, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 02:30, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:58, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - what should be merged has already been merged. Agree with all of the commentary above. A good result which ensures we don't lose any valuable content. St★lwart111 06:19, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 15:47, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Institution of Civil Engineers Student Chapter at National Institute of Technology Srinagar[edit]

Institution of Civil Engineers Student Chapter at National Institute of Technology Srinagar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tagged for notability already, I don't believe that this student organization is notable Gbawden (talk) 09:11, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 10:51, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 10:51, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 01:01, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:56, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; not notable as per WP:GNG. No significant coverage in reliable sources to suggest it merits inclusion. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 05:21, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: An article on a recent local student organisation, contributed by an editor whose name matches a name specifically mentioned in the article. No evidence of attained notability. AllyD (talk) 08:01, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Fails WP:V. Randykitty (talk) 07:15, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Temple,Devunipalli[edit]

Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Temple,Devunipalli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I added a template requesting references on October 17, when it was created, it is still an unsourced article, I don't think it meets WP:N Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 07:32, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 10:57, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 10:59, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into the Devunipalli page. The temple is probably enough of a pilgrimage site at least at the district level. Kautilya3 (talk) 21:07, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 00:59, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:55, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into the Devunipalli page as suggested by Kautilya3 or much better into Karimnagar district under Famous pilgrimages as the article on Devunipalli also doesnot cite any references and might even fail WP:NOTABILITY. Lakun.patra (talk) 06:33, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as failing WP:V unless sources can be found, in which case merge selectively to Devunipalli. We need to at least have reliable sources to confirm the basic facts here or it has to go. --Michig (talk) 09:41, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I found plenty of hits for a "Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy" or "Sri Lakshmi Narasimhaswamy" temple (other variant spellings too) but none apparently from the Devunipalli area. I think we could support a redirect at the aforementioned names, but as for the one above, I can't confirm that it exists. Please ping me if you can. czar ⨹ 16:31, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 15:44, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Voxy P[edit]

Voxy P (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails to meet WP:GNG. —Swpbtalk 17:45, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 10:39, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 10:39, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. My own searches yielded paltry results, mostly self=generated by the band or sites selling the work.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 11:54, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 00:54, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:53, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete (procedural close). Was deleted on 14:49, 24 November 2014 by User:Ponyo (CSD G5: Mass deletion of pages added by User:TheAmandaShowPlease) Natg 19 (talk) 20:32, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Getting the Kinks Out (film)[edit]

Getting the Kinks Out (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

not enough independent coverage found to justify an article at this time. may be recreated nearer to opening date. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:09, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as it'll be released in January 2015 so personally see no point deleting. –Davey2010 • (talk) 03:33, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I see no point in deleting but hey if everyone wants to make life hard work then delete it shall be. –Davey2010 • (talk) 21:49, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 03:34, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Hi MichaelQSchmidt - I wasn't concerned about the film's website being used a source for the plot summary, it's that it was a copyvio, hence removed :-) Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 08:00, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 18:02, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article's author TheAmandaShowPlease is not listed as a confirmed sock at the investigation link you offered. However, there is an OPEN investigation HERE... results are still pending. Schmidt, Michael Q. 01:13, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now confirmed, and article has been speedied under WP:G5. If it ever returns, we should ensure it is re-created by a non-sock editor, and not negatively judge any appropriate topic over the bad-faith actions of the sockfarm. IE: If it beocmes notable enough for an article in the future, it becomes notable. Schmidt, Michael Q. 20:17, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. WP:G7 Shirt58 (talk) 10:04, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aurore Tomé[edit]

Aurore Tomé (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As I work my way through the links presented, I'm going to skip over the IMDb entries, because those alone don't establish notability. I'll also skip the link to auroretome.book.fr and to aurore-tome.fr, for obvious reasons. So, what are we left with?

What is patently and conspicuously absent is any evidence, as expressed in valid sources, that this individual might pass WP:ARTIST, or any indication that the standard set by WP:BASIC is met: "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject". - Biruitorul Talk 02:55, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 03:00, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 03:01, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]


I'm the author of this article,and I request the deletion of this page.I will try to improve this article in the future but now indeed, it must be deleted.Leedskalnin (talk) 08:25, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The argument that coverage exceeds ROUTINE has not successfully made. If someone wants to use the information elsewhere I would be happy to userfy the page to them. J04n(talk page) 18:04, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Pittsburgh vs. West Virginia football game[edit]

2007 Pittsburgh vs. West Virginia football game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:SPORTSEVENT, individual games are not inherently notable and must generally satisfy the general notability guidelines to be suitable for inclusion. Coverage must exceed WP:ROUTINE post-game coverage of typical individual games. While this article is the 100th Backyard Brawl, this game itself is not listed at List of historically significant college football games and only has two sentences in the introduction of Backyard Brawl. Merely being the 100th one is notability inherited. At the same time, while it was voted ESPNU's "Game of the Year", there's no evidence that every game of the year is inherently notable because of that and other than its inclusion at Template:ESPN College Football, there is no mention of this game (or of 'games of the year') at ESPN College Football (not even a list). Upsetting one team's championship hopes is notable to their season but the game itself is not. I think this content should be incorporated into the parent articles about the season of the individual teams (2007 Pittsburgh Panthers football team and 2007 West Virginia Mountaineers football team) along with the series (Backyard Brawl) but it does not meet the criteria for a separate article. Ricky81682 (talk) 03:51, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent)|lambast 04:28, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent)|lambast 04:28, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. lavender|(formerlyHMSSolent)|lambast 04:28, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 17:13, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But is the coverage past WP:ROUTINE levels of coverage? There's going to be plenty of coverage (online definitely) about recent college football games but is this game itself notable or just really a part of the seasons? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:13, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it has far surpassed the routine measure, based on logic in essay WP:NOTROUTINE and the WP:ROUTINE guideline itself. Others disagree.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:47, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no indication this is nothing but an ordinary football game, no lasting coverage. Secret account 16:48, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:35, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Coverage is routine for an upset victory, there is really no lasting significance or impact in later years, beyond raising the fortunes of the Pitt football team, which did quite well after that season but has since dipped back into mediocrity. I'd suggest focusing editing efforts on the 2007 Pittsburgh Panthers football team article, and writing about the impact of this game on the team in subsequent seasons . That article is bare-bones stats atm. Tarc (talk) 17:41, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Michig (talk) 15:41, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kedu dialect[edit]

Kedu dialect (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication that this is actually a thing. The references are all to blogs, and no academic sources seem to exist.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:49, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - allow the editor the opportunity to either (a) expand into written sources (Romo Zoet et al) (b) the dialects of javanese were well explained and identified in Nothofer - if there was a single reference to Nothofer - it would be a snow keep, the lack of reference to nothofer is the crux of the validity of the article. satusuro 23:57, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where, exactly, do either of these scholars identify the Javanese spoke in the former Kedu regency as the "Kedu dialect"? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:01, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed my access to Nothofer and Zoetmulder is a delay factor of up to a week. If neither refs have no mention of the dialect - then it is indeed a valid AFD... satusuro 00:04, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the same editor has created several Javanese dialect articles, all depending on Wordpress blogs with no other references and no other references to be found. If this is not real, let's removed it from Wikipedia. If it IS real, after that or another editor has found some reliable sourcing, the article should be re-made at that time.EBY (talk) 01:23, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:27, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; I'd expect dialects to have an abundance of sources, but my searches turned up nothing other than the few blog posts already cited in the article. I see plenty of coverage of Kedu Residency, but not the dialect. Willing to change my opinion if someone comes up with sources before the end of this discussion, but until then I'm not convinced it's real. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 01:52, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; Agree with Crisco1492 and Dylan. At best, this might be able to be covered in an article on Javanese dialects but not an article on each dialect. HalfGig talk 23:22, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the 'delete' argument is assuming that online sources are the way to verify the article and its claims - if there had been either references to, or utilisation of Uhlenbeck, Nothofer or Zoetmulders works - along with other paper only sources could show that the range of dialects of Java are worthy of stand alone articles. satusuro 14:15, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't assumed that at all, it's just that online sources are the only ones I have access to. Hence why I said "Willing to change my opinion if someone comes up with sources before the end of this discussion". Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 15:02, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The argument - nothing personal - I agree with you - I would be interested to see if anyone can get a handle on nothofer - I suspect he is the probable best reference to see how he describes it. Unfortunately the far more accessible works by Robson (Javanese English Dictionary) do not go into the dialect differences adequately to be references in an article like this. satusuro 15:13, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. per WP:SK#1. Nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete votes. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 06:25, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MP3 Rocket[edit]

MP3 Rocket (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As I just noted on the talk page, this app comes bundled with malware. If there was a tag for flagging articles on malware apps and websites, and policy to back placement of the tag, I wouldn't be proposing this be deleted, but there isn't, so I am, per IAR. Open to other ideas. Elvey(t•c) 01:20, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 02:00, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Unless I'm missing something we don't delete articles just because you've got a virus? ....... –Davey2010 • (talk) 03:44, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural Keep - nomination for invalid reason. While the article sourcing is poor, and an argument could be made on the grounds of notability, whether or not software has malware connections is not a valid reason. Wikipedia has many articles on malware, viruses, etc.Dialectric (talk) 05:32, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close as no reason advanced for deletion. If it is notable and well-documented that it comes bundled with malware then that should be mentioned in the article, but we fortunately don't have a policy of deleting things on wikipedia just because they are bad. Deadbeef 06:30, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - Genuinely one of the worst nominations I've seen in a long time. Nothing in the nomination is policy based, and we have articles on actual viruses, so... It also hasn't always come bundled with malware either, and has reviews at PC World and Softonic. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:36, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I should also note that 7/68 detections, most of which are from what I would consider to be fairly minor AV programs, and some of which are generic warnings that are typical of false positives, is far from being persuasive that this app actually has any malware in it. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:39, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lukeno94Are those not on the defunct software from the company before it started from scratch as a YouTube downloader trojan purveyor? (The former isn't, but the latter seems to be a hybrid.) But look at this comment at the former:
Like so many other programs that PC World doesn't check out thoroughly, MP3 Rocket shows up on many antivirus/antispyware programs as malware, and opens windows for other malware. I had to clean a client's computer twice, because she insisted it was ligitimate. Consequently, I don't trust the reviews, without digging deeper. I have seen the same thing.
Not to mention that it claims to be free/open source: GPL licensed, but the source is nowhere to be found.
But it's not malware? Sure, it might not be. Though it triggers other AV apps heuristics too, if you try to install/run it. If I'm wrong and it doesn't come with PUP or worse malware, I apologize for overreacting. --Elvey(t•c) 23:39, 20 November 2014 (UTC) (edited)[reply]
  • Keep, but if that's sourced properly it should be noted in the lead if it comes bundled with malware. — Cirt (talk) 01:19, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a three-day old file. It would be not surprising if some of the AV programs aren't up to speed. Trend Micro is hardly a minor player. Does anybody dispute that we need a tag for flagging articles on malware apps and websites, and policy to back placement of the tag? --Elvey(t•c) 23:39, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 I guess I won't get an answer to that. Might as well close keep then. --Elvey(t•c) 06:15, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Waters Edge. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:16, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sixties Man[edit]

Sixties Man (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Despite the article actually saying "it is notable", the article makes no attempt to qualify that statement and, crucially, neither does the web. This is a case in point why CSD A9 should apply to non-notable songs whose performers have articles. Launchballer 01:16, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to the song's parent album, Waters Edge. Not notable enough for its own article (non-charting, no significant coverage in reliable sources), but a redirect satisfies the guidelines at WP:NSONG. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 01:57, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Which also is of questionable notability, albeit not to the same extent as this article.--Launchballer 10:01, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 02:02, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 02:02, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 17:58, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It usually makes more sense to uncontroversially redirect likely non-notable songs to their parent album or artist than to take them to AfD czar ⨹ 15:54, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I like to give the author a chance to explain itself/double-check I haven't missed anything.--Launchballer 19:21, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the album per above. --Michig (talk) 16:45, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 17:38, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Brehaut[edit]

Richard Brehaut (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable former college American football player. He has not played in the NFL and did not do anything notable as a college football player. Natg 19 (talk) 01:09, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 01:14, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 01:14, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 17:34, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Prince[edit]

Kevin Prince (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable former college American football player. He has not played in the NFL and did not do anything notable as a college football player. Natg 19 (talk) 01:04, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 01:04, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 01:04, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't know how you can say he is "non notable". He was UCLA's starting QB for multiple years. As the starting QB of a big school like that I'm sure enough coverage to pass WP:GNG can be found.--Yankees10 01:12, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I understand that, however, he was the starting QB during UCLA's down years and when they did not receive much coverage. If you or anyone else finds significant coverage of him, I will be happy to withdraw my nomination. From a quick Google search of him, I only found one article from the LA Times mentioning him. Natg 19 (talk) 01:19, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Prince received extensive coverage in L.A. during his tenure at UCLA. Searching is complicated because we also have lots of hits for Kevin-Prince Boateng, but examples from the L.A. Times include [32][33][34][35]. I think the case would be stronger if someone could identify some non-routine coverage from a national source (or at least a source outside L.A.); I suspect such coverage did exist but my initial search didn't come up with something clear-cut and on-line. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:57, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're right, it wasn't as easy as I expected. But I did find [36] [37][38][39][40][41][42][43] I believe that is enough to pass GNG.--Yankees10 02:00, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw Ok, I'll withdraw my own nom then. Natg 19 (talk) 17:33, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. j⚛e deckertalk 01:36, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alia Kruz[edit]

Alia Kruz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This individual doesn't appear to meet our guidelines for general notability. Best efforts were made to locate sources and improve this article WP:BEFORE this listing, but were not successful. There are roughly 2700 matches for "Alia Kruz" on Google, and I was unable to locate any evidence of non-trivial coverage from a reliable third party source. The references currently provided within the article are actually all photo galleries, some of which aren't relevant to the subject. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 00:35, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 02:07, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 02:07, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 02:07, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 17:57, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm not seeing anything here that suggests an encyclopedia article is justified. --Michig (talk) 16:43, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2014_November_19&oldid=1142627761"